[RJ_Daley]

JakaB, reaching back into the earlier discussion to respond to your thoughts about reaching 4 or 5 greens inorder to have eagle putts on the 9 hole course that you loop twice to get 18 on the old Bende course - like Jeff observed later on: it sounds like you are really into performance.  That Bende course you describe could easily be played with a 3W, 7I, putter for most low handicapps.  Where is the thrill in that?  That course is so short that if technology ruined it, it was technology of the 1930s!  Bende probably did design a shortish 9 holer public access that still had intended some more interesting mid- and even long irons, for 1925.  (BTW, I can't find it attributed to Bende in C&W)

You go on to say that you play 105 of the last 108 weeks at VN, rain, sleet, cold, and heat.  No one will ever accuse you of diletante of this game!  I didn't know VN would be open all year and wrongly guessed that your time was being spent at the Bende 9holer you describe.  But, why do you go to such trouble of a 71 mile commute to play the big lot course?  Is it because it actually challenges your performance?  Didn't technology force a longer, more elaborate and more expensive course to force you to play something more than a 3 club booring game on the shorter Bendelow course.   You, said that the Bende course was cleaver and that Fuzzy and some other pro won a county amatuer there.  Well, if you were having 4-5 putts for eagle, what were those guys doing?  What was the winning score 54?

That brings me to my current thought after reading Rich's very fine post and 12 principles that I also feel hit the nail right on the head.  I'd like to add one more, although his list of "a game that" implies as much...  

13.  A game that returns to a focus on match play, rather than stroke play.   I ask, can much of the technology race be fueled by the focus on par, score, and the idea that birdies are needed and par falls behind?  Would golf be more fun if it were played more often as matches, where strategy is far more important than length?  If there were more associations of golf, golfing societies, men's, women's, juniors clubs run as match play organizations, would that bring the focus back around to a more interpersonal game where relationships with other players and with the golf course design would be more important than the technology race with score and focus on sub par?  

[JakaB]

I am interested in the unaccompanied guest policy at Cypress...is this just one day a week...is it during certain hours..or what.   If Cypress can manage I would think we all could......Don't even try to tell me that first time visitors to Cypress wouldn't clog up the course with photo's and gawkfests...not to mention stragglers hitting unpaid for tee balls of off 16...I have only heard hints on this site of a policy...does it exist...is it written...how did it come about..

[A_Clay_Man]

John- As I understand it,(not too well) it is a policy that gets implemented, at certain periods. I believe it is 90 mins of tee times. 7;30 -9 am, when implemented.

[ForkaB]

Rannulph

I would say they could charge whatever they liked.  It is still a free country, isn't it?

I would hope,however, that they would be generous, per Brian's fine point about being temporal "keepers" of the green, rather than its owners.

[JakaB]

Rj,

Dutch elm desease and the death of our old complex push up greens have done more to weaken the challenge of a 6000 yd course than technology.  Don't poo poo Bob Goalby...it my understanding that Bob at one time held our professional course record at 63...and what I understand Fuzzy won our county tournament at only 3 under par for 36 holes...it is just a nice two day drink fest....we have had a series of great, great pros in the early history of the club....when Fuzzy won.. the pro was Dick Grout...brother of Jack.   A great pro will make up for any faults in architecture a club may be perceived to have.   I never had eagle putts on all those holes the same day...I play alot of golf and if you show up everyday sometimes a 35 mph wind makes for a long ball....I do love to play on clay after a drought....You have no right saying that course is easy because it is short and cheap...that is not you at all and I am at a loss for your motivation.

Why did I join VN and now play most of my golf 71 miles away when I could have a great game 1 mile from my home....Because I can....Alot of the times I just drive down and play nine holes by myself....some times I don't even play any holes as layed out at all...I just tee the ball up and hit it towards some green I know is out there waiting my arrival...I play as fast as I want...I play as slow as I want...I can't wear jeans so I do have to improve my dress to go...but besides that I spend one hour and ten minutes alone in my car for perfect golfing freedom....it has little to do with architecture or performance...even though the architecture and natural surroundings ain't bad...poor, poor me.  

[TEPaul]

Rich has some good points there but a few others are off-based or not well thought through.

I agree with some others that #2 won't ever happen in the States. Forget about tax laws, Federal or local---privacy is something that many in this country want--and if they can afford it they'll always have it as they have to date from the beginning.

And I don't buy for one second that across the pond they're inherently more accomodating or democratic or altruistic or egalitarian about sharing their golf courses with outsiders than we are over here. It's basically that way over there because they need that outside money to keep their dues and fees low and it's  been that way for a long time. That and the ownership structure of many of the older courses, particularly in Scotland, is different from the US. There's virtually nothing in this country like the age old independent clubs that play on and share with other independent private clubs publicly owned courses.

As for Rich's points on #5 and #6 if he believes we already have bifurcation and trifurcation than why bother to even contemplate doing a thing now about the distance the ball goes across the player levels today? The truth of it all, as we seem to know now, is this distance increase is really only limited to a very few of the best and strongest players in the World.

For the rest of the world's 99% this new equipment and new ball makes very little to no difference! This is precisely what people like Frank Thomas, Tim Weiman above and perhaps the USGA/R&A are saying!

Clearly, many, and most on here are saying that elite group's (very small but visible percentage) distance increase should be reined in and reined back by the USGA/R&A anyway!

The regulatory bodies are basically saying that really doesn't or at least shouldn't make any difference to 99% of the world's golfers and their courses so why in hell look into redesigning and lengthening them! That's what they're saying! The regulatory bodies have a point there but that doesn't satisfy us! We want them to set a better example for all by reining in and reining back that small elite!

The regulatory bodies are saying to the rest of the golfers of the world and their clubs not to bother to contemplate doing some of the things they ask clubs that host their tournaments to do. They're implying why would any of you want to do that when we should know that small elite group will never play our courses?

But we keep asking them to set a better example! Certainly we do have a point in that and asking for things like a "competition" rolled back ball for that small elite but I suppose we could just as easily say to the USGA/R&A please set a better example for us because we're too stupid to figure it out!!

Here's an alternative scenario but clearly a very unattractive one to the regulatory bodies and certainly to the manufacturers but one that ultimately would probably be of the greatest benefit of all to that 99% of the world's golfers and their courses that are always trying to keep up with the Jones. (Would "The Joneses" be perhaps utlimately only the tournament venues? You bet they would)!

What the regulatory bodies should say---and certainly people like us should say any chance we get, is that this technology really doesn't help 99% of the world's golfers, never really did and never will!

Of course that would finally let that dark little secret out of the bag that the manufacturers and their BS advertizing campaigns have been foisting on all us idiots since the beginning of the last century!

The USGA/R&A should probably just say their tests show that equipment technology--ball or impliment really doesn't help 99% of us golfers at least regarding distance and probably never will if you play by our present I&B rules and regs, so why worry about it and contemplate doing anything to your courses?

Tim Weiman, apparently got a benefical reaction from some club when he asked them why they'd add length to their course and assess the entire membership when added length only really matters to perhaps 1% of the membership.

That's what we all should be saying and asking! That's what the USGA/R&A should be hollering from the roof tops! That's what they're implying, though, by what they're presently doing and seem to be planning! They're basically saying what some already know--that you can't buy your game in the pro shop---never could and you'll never be able to! The regulatory bodies should be hollering that---and even explain to us that they can back that up with their sophisticated testing procedures! It's the truth!

But of course that would make the manufacturers madder than a bunch of put upon hornets because it would expose that dark little secret they've been foisting on us idiots from the beginning which they want to continue to foist on us idiots for the rest of time.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Muy buen! Rich.

You somewhat alluded to a point that I think needs to be added to your list, and then you can go off and write a book with it.  Maintenace expectations seem to be exceedingly high in the US.  I remeber a very heated conversation between myself, a client in Argentiana, and my American supervisor who was leading the fight.  The client want to put in 4' wide 1" thick concrete cart paths, and we argued you needed something more substanative for a path.  He ended up exploding and yelling "You fu***ng Americans over design everything by 30%!!!!!!  Later we laughed, but in many respects there is much truth in what he said.  Maybe in the context of this discussion we expect 30% more maintenance than we need.  Everyone has some responsibilities, but the golfers expectations for the quality of turf needs to be lowered, and the golfers attitude toward lower quality conditions, especially during times of weather related stress needs to change.  Recently, a super. expressed concern about some ridges and his ability to maintain turf during the heat w/o handwatering, and my instinct was to say "what's wrong with a little dirt on top?" Really, the maintence community neds some serious scrutiny.  I remember when I got in the business the dream maintenance facility  was 5000 SF.  Now it seems common to have 12,000SF to 15,000SF, and some probably think those figures are outdated.  We all have contributed to this problem, and I think it has a more serious impact on golf than the ball, shaft or driver face.  

With regard for the US lack of porosity between private and public courses, I would expect that members here are more sensitive to a decline in membership value if a more friendly public play policy were implemented.  So much of what we do here is driven by marketing concerns and perceptions.  In particular it would be a marketing or management company nightmare to be charged with marketing memberships in a private club while also promoting a generous public play policy.  They would expect initiation fees to plumment in comparison to the market.  That is just my initial guess at part of the reason we are different from the UK.  God knows ya'll have as many snots there per capita!  Heck, we are offspring of British snots, and criminals!  

It is interesting that Rawls contributed $8 million and that keeps the green fees reasonable.  Why can not more of that happen, maybe not at that scale, but I can not imagine he did not derive some personal gain from making that contribution, beyond just boosting his ego.  He didn't get to a position of being able to contribute $8 million by being loose with his money, he had to have extracted something he needed from such a contribution.  There are plenty of Americans that could somewhat match that level of generosity on a local level.  I mean many local communities have wealthy contributors, what could be more meaningful to the public than to be priovided with a magnificent recreational facility within the physical limits of the community, at a reasonable price.  What was the impetus behind his giving? Is there a model there for other contributors within their communities?  Why you ask do we need that level of contribution toward a public facility, well in some parts of the country the governmental regulations, DEP, DEC, soil conservation, and on have driven the cost of development into the stratosphere.

[George Pazin]

I would think that just general access would make point #2 a pretty dead issue, tax and social issues aside. If I were opnying up big $$, I wouldn't want to have to fret about tee times.

Gotta love someone quoting De Toqueville (sp?).

Tom D -

I know TRC was more expensive, but wasn't that due to the starting land and the desired end product? Surely your other offerings like High Pointe weren't expensive to build. That probably would have been a better example - but then someone would have ripped me for citing a course I've never played.

[ForkaB]

Geoge and Kelly and TE Paul

My point #2 (more "porosity") was phrased as it was becuase I ddin't want to raise the spectre of thousands of "Joe Six-Packs" pulling their RV's into the Parking lot at Merion (say), popping out with their clubs over their shoulders and demanding a game.  I was thinking rather of the Muirfield policy of allowing players and even visiting parties on certain days, with some policing of decorum.  No reason why this couldn't work at most if not all private clubs in the US, if......and it's a very big IF.......its members were willing to share their course with "the other."  That many would never consider such, as Tom Paul rightly says, is a sad commentary on human nature, and, as I was trying to say, determental to the growth in quality of "our" game.

I personally am not terrribly interested in a "game" which allows access to many of its finest venues only through the willingness to spend large sums of money to insure that this access will be private.  It surely is not in the "Spirit of ST. Andrews" and if there is a "Soul of Golf" I am sure it is shrieking just as much at CBM's contribution to making NGLA so exclusive as it is rejoicing at the beautiful creation he left behind for his friends to play.

Kelly

Re: maintenance, I think this is less of a divide between the UK and the US than it was 25 years ago.  Today, even small UK courses have pretty large maintenance staff and all the modern equipment.  Of course, the wages they pay are much smaller, and many of the courses tend to keep themselves, due to both the terrain and the climate.  That being said, there is a "lower" standard expected by golfers over here.  Fast and firm and sometimes brown or even nearly naked turf is acceptable or even desired.  That takes a lot of time and a lot of care, but not a helluva a lot of money.

All

These Rawls course data are interesting.  Can they really "afford" to charge $35/rond?  If they have the number of rounds Tom implies (~80,000/year), then Mr. Rawls' contribution of $8mm only really reduces the costs by $20/round (assuming 20% ROC).  That gives us $55/round for a really great course (by all accounts).  Why do other similar quality courses charge so much more?  Is it the privacy factor, or just stupidity (i.e. poorly considered high margin/low volume pricing)?

[ChasLawler]

My point #2 (more "porosity") was phrased as it was becuase I ddin't want to raise the spectre of thousands of "Joe Six-Packs" pulling their RV's into the Parking lot at Merion (say), popping out with their clubs over their shoulders and demanding a game.  I was thinking rather of the Muirfield policy of allowing players and even visiting parties on certain days, with some policing of decorum.  No reason why this couldn't work at most if not all private clubs in the US

Rich -  with how does Muirfireld deal the "Joe Six-Packs"?

[Dan Kelly]

My point #2 (more "porosity") was phrased as it was becuase I ddin't want to raise the spectre of thousands of "Joe Six-Packs" pulling their RV's into the Parking lot at Merion (say), popping out with their clubs over their shoulders and demanding a game.  I was thinking rather of the Muirfield policy of allowing players and even visiting parties on certain days, with some policing of decorum.  No reason why this couldn't work at most if not all private clubs in the US, if......and it's a very big IF.......its members were willing to share their course with "the other."  That many would never consider such, as Tom Paul rightly says, is a sad commentary on human nature, and, as I was trying to say, determental to the growth in quality of "our" game.

A "Hear, Hear!" here -- with one minor quibble: I don't think we're talking about "human nature" here. Those guys at Muirfield are human, aren't they?

At the very least, the private clubs of the United States ought to reach out to the children of "the other," if not to their parents. Joe Sixpack Jr. needs a place to learn the game, and to learn how to play the game, much more than Joe Sixpack Sr. does.

What a fine use for an empty Monday course.

[Mike Hendren]

...not to mention stragglers hitting unpaid for tee balls of off 16...

Barn,

The appropriate term is "members of the gallery."

BTW, when do the asphalt plants open back up?  A little work might do you good.

Mike

[JohnV]

Rich, almost all "private" clubs in America have outings on a regular basis.  It is one of their primary sources of income these days.  There is probably not one club in Pittsburgh that doesn't have some regular outings each year.  Just last year I played Fox Chapel, Pittsburgh Field Club, Nemacolin Country Club, Laurel Valley and a couple of others in outings arranged by various groups.  Even Pine Valley had the mother of all outings when they did the 9/11 relief fund events.  Of course, there are a few courses such as Augusta that probably don't do this, but I'd bet that someone who is paying attention and has a few bucks to spend could get on most private clubs in America this way.  Remember all the tee times that were sold by some university in Philadelphia last year as a fund raiser.

I remember one poster on this site was thinking about starting a website to publicize charity outings and the like at clubs.  The site would allow you to go and check for events at a specific club and then signup.  He never did it, but it seems like a good idea.

The thing you can't do at many private courses here is just write a letter or call and be able to come out and play.  But many others will let you do that if you are polite and a member at another club.

[Mike Hendren]

JohnV et al,

Check out the May 2001 issue in Golf Digest's archives.  I am having problems posting the link.


Mike

[DMoriarty]

Is it possible that some of you are getting sidetracked by this "growing the game" issue?  

The equipment manufacturers, the USGA, and some developers are claiming that the new equipment is good for the game, and that they need technology to help grow the game.  

This begs the question:  Then why hasnt the game grown with this big jump in technology?  If the masses love this new stuff then why 1/2 million less golfers?  Why are equipment manufacturers suffering?  Why are ratings down? Why are hundreds of courses being sold, many at a fraction of what they cost to build?  

Where is the evidence that the technology helps grow golf?

[JohnV]

Mike, I assume this is the link you meant:

http://www.golfdigest.com/features/index.ssf?/courses/americasgreatest/getting_g8tcz7lc.html

I would bet that the number of opportunities to play courses has increased since this article.

We found that clubs wanted us to play our championships on days other than Mondays this year since they were scheduling outings on them and making money.

[JakaB]

I suppose in many ways it boils down to how you define a better or worse game.

Geoff seems to focus on the growth of golf and the destruction of classic courses. If those are your primary criteria, it seems hard to conclude the game of golf is in good shape and has a rosy future ahead.

JakaB, on the other hand, seems to be focussing on ease of play and his own microclimate of courses. Maybe under those standards the game is doing pretty well.

For what it's worth, I took up the game 7 years ago (29 at the time). My first season's clubs were 20 year old hand me downs and I enjoyed playing with them quite a bit. Since then I've played largely with a cheap starter set I received as a Christmas present, so I guess I've always been behind the curve when it comes to purchasing technology (maybe I'm probably not the best judge, then, don't really know).

It seems to me that if you're simply looking to hit the ball farther with less practice and effort, these are indeed better times. That doesn't really equate to more fun to me. For me personally, if I were to list the ten most satisfying shots I've hit in my brief career, none of them would be 300 yard drives (and I've hit more than a couple). Of course, for Shivas, all 10 of them would be 300+ yard drives, so he proably feels like the game's doing great today, too. My most enjoyable rounds were also not driver-wedge rounds, either. I think that gets old, no matter how you slice it.

Playing long slog courses that I'd say are primarily the result of the desire for a "championship course" are also not tons of fun for the average golfer, IMO, especially with the concurrent championship prices.

To me, what would be best for the average golfer would be the ready availability of courses like Rustic Canyon, The Rawls Course, etc. Relatively inexpensive, interesting public layouts. The current environment of golf does not seem to be enocouraging or emphasizing this model, however. I think that's a big part of what Geoff is saying is wrong. He believes (and I agree, for the most part) that where we are now and where we are headed are largely the result of technology gone wild and the poor examples set at the highest levels of golf.

I'm kind of torn, because I'm not really someone who believes intervention fixes everything in life, sometimes you gotta just have faith the market will work things out. I think if more people built courses like RC & TRC, they'd enjoy financial success. The question is, would they have strong enough egos to laugh when "the lists" come out and their courses have been passed over by the cogniscenti in favor of the glitzy expensive long slogs with spectacular views? Probably not, but that's really more an indication of personal low self esteem than anything wrong with the game.

It's not hard for me to understand why JakaB is so happy with the state of today's game. If I played half as much as him, at a course half as nice as VN, I'd probably be a damn sight more optomistic, too.

I give Geoff a ton of credit for sticking his neck out there. He was intimately involved in building a course that is apparently very well received and very successful. He's held in high regard for his other books - for damn good reason, they are outstanding and inspiring. It'd be damn easy for him to stick his head in the ground rather than on the chopping block, but instead, I think he's looking out for guys like me, in terms of encouraging affordable, thought provoking and, most of all, FUN golf, and the members of many special places, where ill advised alterations continue to be performed.

I wonder what your opinion would be, JakaB, if you didn't have the resources for your playing situation, or if the Green Committee at VN chose to bring in someone in 5-10 years to start f-ing with the golf course and sending you the bill.

P.S. Nice post, Rich.

George....ask any you shall receive....If I ever made as well a though out post and it was not replied to...I would want an answer myself...so here goes..

The game is damn good to me...one thing that people who live in the cities where access is both tough and expensive don't understand is that if they want they can simply move to an economically and socially bankrupt area and enjoy golf like me and my friends do.....The trade off in great golf we enjoy is more than balanced by the other cultural treats, good schools, great food and income sources we miss.  Sadly the local printer I went to school with my whole life just went out of business...but thats life in the boonies.   My problem is not so much what The Book says but who it is saying it too.   I don't the think the core of golf is in the cities...I don't think golf should be changed for people who spend more time talking, watching or writing about it than playing it...I don't think people people who don't give a damn about improving should hold back those of us that do....I don't think Chicken Little was right....but I do think Chicken Little needs to be heard.   You might call Chicken Little courageous...I might call the farmers wife courageous...but that is not really the issue to me.  The issue is why do we think there is a problem...is it because we can no longer shape our shots with modern equipment...is it because we can no longer afford to play as much golf as we choose because of green fees and the cost of new technology....it it because those of us who belong to private clubs can no longer afford the accessments to bring our courses into the modern age...is it because the courses we wish to hold majors get passed over...it is because AGNC has rough and the fairways at Shinnecock are narrow....is it because us and our hip friends can't get the morning tee times we want....is it because we can't live in the most beautiful city in the world and play the most beautiful course in the world while our most beautiful wife in the world watches our beautiful children.....I don't know George...none of those are my problems...are they yours..

[RJ_Daley]

Between George and JakaB's posts lies the crux of the matter.  Like George says and Barney admits, the issue for Barney calling out Chicken Little is a matter of Barney's being happy in his micro-climate of golfdom.  George rightly asks if John would be of a same mind set if more technology causes the members at VN to undertake costly remodelling to upgrade to an new level of increased technology (a membership one assumes are more in-tune with big modern design and a prestigeous golf course)  John told us earlier just how much he actually plays and sacrifices in time and treasure to go the 71 miles to play VN 105 of the last 108 weeks.  I had it wrong about the Lawrence County course being the one he plays most of his golf on.  But, what is Barney's price break point?  Can a driven membership that wants to keep up with the Jones's access and increase prices for the sake of upgrading to technology and maintenance meld expectations, where Barney says enough, you can shove it?

But, it seems to me that Geoff is not Chicken Little because he is addressing the future of golf, not in the micro climate that is still good for John.  He is addressing the future for the other 75% or so that have to settle for the bigger cities, where there is natually higher fees and more conciousness to be competitive in the misguided common mindset that has come about in a golf culture that has lost those small town values that Barney is alluding to at Lawrence county.

BTW, I don't think one does sacrifice too much to live in the boonies.  There are still good schools- many better than inner cities, and culture is what you want it to be and are willing to work to preserve, and the food is wholesome - you just have to learn to cook it, and income and jobs are moving from the cities to off shore faster than the rural environs anyway.

[JakaB]

RJ,

How is your golf world not near perfect except for the climate you choose to live in....I know you have a beautiful family..did I every thank you for the Christmas Card.   I am not the only happy golfer in the world....we proved that the first time a thread about The Book was discussed weeks ago.

[RJ_Daley]

Well your exactly right John.  I am one of the lucky ones.  Other than the distance further south you are in to be able to play more winter golf than I can, there probably isn't a heck of a lot of difference in our quality and choices of what and where we can play in a 75mile radius.  We both have access to great courses at relatively moderate prices.  We can opt to pay more for the big lot venues as you do at VN, and I won't at about 4-5 clubs at my disposal in this area.  

But, due to our geography, we are lucky and in the golf playing minority, I think.  Our futures are way better off than those of the big cities and limitted options.  But, can technology and a golf culture become misguided even in our futures due to market driven hyping of technology and bad information as to what is the tech future of golf.  

[JakaB]

But, can technology and a golf culture become misguided even in our futures due to market driven hyping of technology and bad information as to what is the tech future of golf.  

No...I am more worried about people in the bastions of power changing the game to protect their asses than the good people of Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana following the lead of Madison Avenue.  I go as the USGA goes...and as you will see in Part IV of The Book....they ain't been asleep..they just been cuttin carrots waiting for some fresh chicken to fill their pot....I just want to stoke the fire a little so dinner is on time.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()